WanshanThe new yard in Shanghai will have a dry dock almost tailor made for carrier construction, and there is another dry dock big enough for a carrier in Dalian. The Varyag itself spent several months in it, and there are pictures knocking about on most Chinese military forums.
As I said, if there’s more than just 1 dock then parallel building would be feasable.
The French example is more of an aberration rather then the norm. It might not have been bigger, but it was still a highly ambitious project, being nuclear powered, having many new features like the propellers you mentioned, as well as its carrying ability.
The nuclear propulsion was new for a carrier, but old in that it derived from that in Frances nuclear subs. Carrying capability of CdG is the same as the preceding Clemenceau class (35-40 aircraft). Overall, I don’t consider it an abberation: UK case is similar > it just as well illustrates knowing about design and building of nuclear subs doesn’t guarantee quick build times for (STOVL) carriers.
What you are arguing is that China has no Carrier design experience. That is true, but that has little baring on how fast China can build carriers once it has the designs it wants.
China has spent the last several decades studying carrier design and drawing up blue prints of its own. For China to start construction of its carriers would mean that China has long since finalized the design and the only thing left to do is to build the ships themselves.
That is where China’s past shipbuilding record becomes important, since it clearly shows that Chinese yards have the technology and experience needed to successfully complete projects of that level of complexity and scale. It would just be a case of following the building instructions like any other contract.
Going from a blank piece of paper to two finished carriers in 6 years is highly improbable, and if you think that was what I was suggesting, then no wonder you had such a hard time accepting it. However, turning out a pair of 50-60kt warships in 6 years, when they are built simultaneously, is not such a tall order now is it?
All the build-times I gave were for BUILD-times i.e. construction i.e. time from being first LAID DOWN to being COMMISSIONED (which includes sea trials). At no point did I include time for design.
WanshanI think the French Charles De Gaulle is one of the best bang for buck AC out there. Only 40 K tons and 40 AC. Very Impressive, cheaper to operate than a super carrier and yet carries a considerable Punch.
Some issues:
– French needed to extend the flight deck to safely operate the E-2C Hawkeye
– A nuclear reactor trial in 2000 triggered the combustion of additional isolation elements, producing a smoke incident. Interesting, given that in 1993, a group of MI6 officers posing as engineers were discovered inspecting the vessel during its construction and it is believed that they were evaluating the method of shielding the nuclear reactors (which derive from those in France’s nuclear subs) …
– structural faults in the original advanced propellers, plus all documents relating to their design and fabrication lost in a fire, leading to replacement by less advanced spare propellers of Clemenceau and Foch, limiting the maximum speed to 25 knots instead of the contractual 27 knots (50 km/h) and possibly causing abnormal noises, as loud as 100 dB, near the starboard propeller, which rendered the aft part of the ship temporarily uninhabitable until after another refit.
WanshanIs it true the Belgrano was one of the few U.S. ships to escape unscathed from the Pearl Harbour attack ?
As USS Phoenix (CL-46) survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Belgrano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)
the fateful morning of December 7, 1941 found her anchored southeast of Ford Island near hospital ship Solace. Observers on board Phoenix sighted the rising sun of Japan on strange planes coming in low over Ford Island and a few seconds later the ship’s guns took them under fire. Phoenix escaped the disaster unharmed and shortly after noon was underway to join light cruisers St. Louis and Detroit and several destroyers in an impromptu task force searching, unsuccessfully, for the enemy aircraft carriers.
WanshanAnyone know projected weapons outfit? will it be similar to varyag’s missle outfit or will it be more reliant on airwing and have a more short range based defence?and they would have to be ski jump equipped wouldn’t they? or can the Su-33 be attached to a catapult?
My guess is as good as any’s but I would expect weaponry as follows:
definitely:
several Type 730 CIWS
SAMs, depending on radar fit
several VLUs for HQ-16 VL-SAMs (along Type 054A lines) or
several VLUs for HQ-9 VL-SAMs (along Type 052C lines) and/or
several Naval FL-3000 Point Defense Missile Systems.
possibly
at least 2×4 SSM (either YJ-83 or YJ-62)
ASW weaponry i.e. 2x triple torpedo tubes
WanshanThe Varyag is not the USSR’s first attempt at carrier designing, and is the culmination of all their past design experiences and lessons learnt from them, the Varyag’s sister ships are either operational or in the process of being put into operation, further validating the design. Meaning nothing major is missing from the design. With her as the starting point, they have already got the hardest part out of the way.
There is only one sistership, the Kuznetsov, and her operational record is not exactly stellar.
If you consider the 4 Kiev’s as sisterships, they have a record of boilerroom explosions and fires. It’s Yak-39 aircraft complement is of extremely limited military value.
If you were referring to the substantially larger and nuclear powered Ul’yanovsk class: that follow-on project was cancelled in November 1991 at which time construction of the first of class was about 45% complete. Scrapping of this incomplete unit began in February 1992, along with the metals prepared for building a second ship of this class. The fact that the Russians developed and initially adopted this follow-on to Kuznetsov class is an indication that the Russian didn’t consider that design to be their ultimate.
WanshanAs I have said before, an important factor that you might not have considered is that for all the carrier types you listed, all of them were trying to push out the envelop of their respective nation’s carrier tech, to produce something bigger, better and more powerful then anything that has come before.
France’s CdG isn’t substantially bigger, better or more powerfull than the preceeding Clemenceau class. The Verdun class attack carrier would have been much larger but was cancelled due to cost (not tech reasons)
Russia: the Kuznetsov isn’t so much bigger or more powerfull than the Baku/Kievs. Rather it is more specialized, more completely dedicated to supporting an airwing. Put differently, the combat value of the Yak-39 on the Kievs is negliable, making Kievs primarily a helicopter-carrier, comparable in function with Invincible class, but much better armed. The underlying ship-technology is virtually the same (One clue are the projectnumbers: Kiev and Kuznetsov classes share the same 1134 prefix. Another the propulsion plant: identical)
UK: moved away from 50k-60k ton WWII and post-WWII fleet carriers to 20-30 ton helicopter/STOVL carriers.
US: the 5 post-war supercarrier designs (including 1 nuclear powered design) preceeding the Nimitz class are not substantially smaller than Nimitz, nor do they carry a substantially smaller aircraft element. With advent of the Nimitz class, emphasis switched to tactical rather than strategic (pure nuclear strike, without tactical or non-nuclear) roles. Main improvements are in deck layout, elevator location, island location, sensors/electronics/combat management systems, armaments carried.
China has an advantage over all the others in that they have the past lessons of many to learn from, and most likely have mature technology and design philosophies to draw upon. They may have an even bigger head start if they are basing their carrier on the Varyag, because the bulk of the design work has already been done and validated.
Uk and US have at least as much mature technology and many designs to draw upon. US has built some 70 fleet carriers (of which 20 post WW2) and a good 130 escort carriers, not counting any LPH/LHA/LHD. In 20 classes. The Uk record, while less numerous in terms of number of ships and classes, is no less impressive and much of the pioneering and experience with UK carriers went into US carriers. Sure having had opportunity to study physical examples, namely Varyag, 2 Kievs and the 15000 ton UK designed Majestic class aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne, gives China interesting benefits, but these do not represent a broad spectrum of design philosophies, nor are they typical examples of large carriers. China may also have had a look at some 2 plans for different 25k ton CTOL carriers and the midget carrier Chakri Naruebe, all by Bazan of Spain. Again, not the most experienced builder or innovative design (US sea control ship)
As for the dry dock. Well the new Shanhai yard has only one, but so has Dalian, and who has been studying the Varyag all these years?
If there are 2 suitable docks, then it is a different matter, but that condition was stated clearly all along.
Wanshan[QUOTE=plawolf;1342382]If they can build one in 6 years, they can build two, side-by-side in the same time, as they have done with all of their newest heavy surface combatants.[/quite]
Depends. There ar many drydocks available for building a frigate or destroyer, there will only be 1 drydock for carrierbuilding, from what these reports ell us.
All this ‘China never done that before’ line is getting very old. Not only has China been mass producing ships larger then carriers (super tankers, LNG tankers etc), it has also been building ships more complex then carriers (nuclear subs). What more, China has also spent the last several decades methodically studying carrier designs from as many sources of it can get their hands on.
Nobody says China can’t build ships, even highly cmplex ones such as nuclear subs. But, as the example of France shows, knowing how to make nuclear subs doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing when it comes to designing and building a nuclear carrier, even with some experience in conventional carriers. And, as the example of UK shows, knowing how to make nuclear subs and many conventional carriers, doesn’t guarantee speed in building.
China’s first carriers will not be some ground-breaking revolutionary ship that will change the nature of carrier ops forever, it will be a modest distillation of all the different designs over the past 50 years that best suits China’s needs, tactics, budget and technology. That sets it markedly apart from the vast majority of all the other carriers that have come before it, and that makes the whole project a lot easier.
Most carriers I’ve mentioned aren’t groundbreaking or revolutionary either. Current US ships in particular are also a distillated of different US designs (some 20-odd ship classes since CV-1 Langley of 1920 vintage!) as well as UK-designs, and best suited to USA’s needs, tactics, technology, budget as well as combat experience. I don’t really see what would set apart the first Chinese domestic carrier.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_index.htm
WanshanWanshan
I think a lot will depend on how advanced the PLAN wants to make their carriers. Most of the carriers in your list are nuclear, not conventional, and most are America super-carriers, which are larger then what the PLAN plans and consequently would take longer to build.
If the PLAN chooses to take the Varyag as the basic design and then only make some modest changes, then they may well be able to turn out a pair of carriers in 6 years.
I think it won’t be the building, but rather the shake down that will take the PLAN longer then normal, and that is probably why they are even considering returning the Varyag to service – so they can train the crews and develop the tactics so they can put the new carriers to operational use after only a short shake down, instead of wasting years trying to figure out how best to run and use them.
1. If you look at the russian/ukrainian build-times, they increased (from 6 to 8 years) rather than decreased as they moved from initial Kiev’s to the much revised Baku/Gorshkov to the Kuznetsov. Varyag was of course never finished. All of these 6 ships are conventional. So, increases in complexity and size add to build time.
2. If you look at the 10 ship Nimitz class CVNs, you see build time decreases (from 7 years to 5,5 years) as more of the class being are produced. So, experience from extended series production reduces buildtime.
3. Build times for the conventional Clemenceau and Foch is stable at 6 years. If you look at the (ex) french carriers, you see that the CdG CVN is a poor example: construction quickly fell behind schedule as the project was starved of funding and work on the ship was suspended altogether on four occasions: 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1995. If those stoppages each cost a year, then her build time would have been about 8 years. So, in all, around 6 years for building a single large carrier seems reasonable.
4. This is 11 nuclear powered large(r) carriers versus 8 conventionally powered medium sized carriers.
Admittedly, the non-nuclear US CVs appear to have been built quicker than their CVNs: Kittyhawk took 4,5 years (Laid down: 27 December 1956, Launched: 21 May 1960, Commissioned: 29 April 1961) and Kennedy took 4 years (Laid down: 22 October 1964, Launched: 27 May 1967, Commissioned: 7 September 1968)
The much smaller STOVL carriers don’t take significantly shorter to build than larger carriers Importantly, they moreoften are the first and/or second of their kind in the respective navies.
Chakri Naruebet took just 3,5 years (no weapons, basic sensors). Laid down: 12 July 1994, Launched: 20 January 1996, Commissioned: 10 August 1997)
The earlier and larger Principe d’Asturias took 8,5 years (Laid down: 8 October 1979, Launched: 22 May 1982, Commissioned: 30 May 1988)
Invincible took 7 years (Laid down: July 1973, Launched: 3 May 1977, Commissioned: 11 July 1980)
Illustrious took almost 6 years (Laid down: 7 October 1976, Launched: 14 December 1978, Commissioned: 20 June 1982)
Ark Royal took almost 7 years (Laid down: 14 December 1978, Launched: 2 June 1981, Commissioned: 1 November 1985 )
By contrast, Ocean took just 4,5 years (Laid down: 30 May 1994, Launched: 11 October 1995, Commissioned: 30 September 1998)
(NB: thus 6-7 years for the Invincible class even given with a long history of building carriers!)
Conte di Cavour took almost 7 years (Laid down: July 17 2001, Launched: July 20 2004, Commissioned: March 27, 2008 )
The smaller, earlier Garibaldi took 4,5 years (Laid down: March 1981, Launched: 11 June 1983, Commissioned: 30 September 1985 )
Now, in 6 years time then, China – which has built not a single aircraft carrier before – is supposed to have built and inducted 2 brand 50-60k ton new large carriers? Using a single purpose-built new dock? Aside from finishing Varyag as a training carrier …? I’m not saying its impossible, but that is a rather tight schedule if you ask me.
Wanshan“China will begin construction of the country’s first domestically produced aircraft carriers in Shanghai next year, with an eye to completing two mid-sized carriers by 2015, military and shipbuilding sources said.”
So each carrier would take max 6 years if construction is in parallel (but this requires 2 suitable docks), or (much) less (if serial contruction in single dock).
This seems a tight, possibly too optimistic schedule.
By comparison:
Kuznetsov took 8 years (Laid down: 22 February 1983, Launched: 5 December 1985, Commissioned: January 21, 1991)
Gorshkov took 8 years (Laid down: December 1978, Launched: April 17, 1982
Commissioned: January 1987)
Novorossiysk took 7 years (Laid down: 30 September 1975, Launched: 24 December 1978, Commissioned: 12 September 1982)
Minsk took 6 years (Laid down: 1972, Launched: 30 September 1975, Commissioned: 27 September 1978 )
Kiev took 5,5 years (Laid down: July 21, 1970, Launched: 26 December 1972
Commissioned: 28 December 1975)
Charles de Gaulle took 12 years, including extended trials and technical problems (Laid down: 14 April 1989, Launched: 7 May 1994, Commissioned: 18 May 2001)
Clemenceau took 6 years (Laid down: November 1955, Launched: 21 December 1957, Commissioned: 22 November 1961)
Sao Paolo (ex-Foch) took nearly 6 years (Laid down: 15 November 1957, Launched: 23 July 1960, Commissioned: 15 July 1963 )
Bush took 5,5 years (Laid down: 6 September 2003, Launched: 9 October 2006, Commissioning: 10 January 2009)
Reagan took 5,5 years (Laid down: 12 February 1998, Launched: 4 March 2001, Commissioned: 12 July 2003)
Truman took 5 years (Laid down: 29 November 1993, Launched: 7 September 1996, Commissioned: 25 July 1998 )
Stennis took 4,5 years (Laid down: 13 March 1991, Launched: 11 November 1993, Commissioned: 9 December 1995)
Washington took 6 years (Laid down: 25 August 1986, Launched: 21 July 1990, Commissioned: 4 July 1992 )
Lincoln took 5 years (Laid down: 3 November 1984, Launched: 13 February 1988, Commissioned: 11 November 1989)
Roosevelt took 5 years (Laid down: 31 October 1981, Launched: 27 October 1984, Commissioned: 25 October 1986 )
Vinson took 6,5 years (Laid down: 11 October 1975, Launched: 15 March 1980, Commissioned: 13 March 1982)
Eisenhower took 7 years (Laid down: 15 August 1970, Launched: 11 October 1975, Commissioned: 18 October 1977)
Nimitz took 7 years (Laid down: 22 June 1968 (Launched: 13 May 1972, Commissioned: 3 May 1975 )
WanshanOr now the Yakhont family and Club potentially.
I personally feel that there should be a mix of missiles though. The larger missiles are effectively one-hit wonders for everything including carriers. Imagine the size of the whole from a Kh-22 / SS-N-12/19 – a deck or tower hit means a useless floating airfield! Just one!
One Nanuchka class ship was re-fitted with 2×6 Yakhont, IIRC.
WanshanWhat I see as the biggest issues with a non-power deck would be the facing of the ship and its movement.
In short, you too think Varyag must be able to move under its own power.
Wanshan8 is enough to meet most threats and most countries rules of engagement and the fear of hitting civilian shipping means that long ranged over the horizon ASM attacks probably are never going to be common.
Besides a few AA missiles like the SM-2 can be used against surface ships and can be fired off quicker than a harpoon.
Any semi-active radar homing surface to air missile can in principal be used to attack surface target. They may not sink an opposing ship, but might damage or take out sensors, weapons or e.g. the bridge of an that vessel.
Wanshanwith warships being fitted with more Long Range, Medium range SAMs and CIWS, would 8 SSMs be enough to neutralize an decent warship or fleet having good enough SAMs and CIWS? or am i underestimating the capability of salvo launch of 8 SSMs on modern warships.
In most scenario’s there wouldn’t be just 1 surface ship with 8 antiship missiles but several. Not to mention land-, sub- and/or air launched missiles. Plus any other attacking platforms (i.e. land or seabased fighterbombers/bombers/MPA’s)
Untill jsut a few years back, a typical Dutch or Nato escort group in the Atlantic would have comprised a total of 6 frigates/destroyers plus an SSK. That’s around 50 antiship missiles, not counting missiles smaller than Harpoon or Exocet which can be launched by the ships’ helicopters (e.g. Penguin, Sea Skua).
WanshanAh now that is the question, they have mentioned her as a training platform. That could mean towed to a suitable place and used as a fixed facility rather then under power.
If it comes to be and these new carriers are built I have a hunch that there will be much to surprise us. Lots of work has gone in behind the scenes in respect of carrier reasearch in China long before Varyag was purchased. We know that they had a land based research facility with Arrester gear and steam catapult set up. I think the new carriers will be similar to Varyag in size and features with a Ski jump to operate STOBAR types like the Su33 but I have a sneaking feeling that they will also feature at least one local catapult to operate as of yet declared local designs in a hybrid setup.
Obviously, a stationary ship would not require propulsion, nor a defensive weapons/sensor suite. Though this may not be correct, I tought that carriers turn into the wind at speed to launch aircraft. So, I’m not sure that a (loaded) SU-33 can take of from a stationary ship, which would kind of limit the value of the ship for training. Also, if a (loaded) Su-33 could take of from a stationary training ship, what – if any – is the training advantage of a stationary training vessel over a (much cheaper) land based stationary practise site?
In short, not convinced yet
I’ld find it more likely that Varyag remains where she is (serving just as study object) and that the 2 new ships are built along the lines of the Varyag design, with or without Russian and/or Ukrainian assistance.
WanshanRather than to rant about the US let’s just stick to the facts for now. Wait and see what happens with Varyag first: she has yet to move under her own power and so long as she hasn’t she not going to be much good. Not to mention that in spite of all this time at Dalian, no visible sensors and/or weapons have been installed.
http://p2o2.blogspot.com/2008/07/speed-of-development-strike.html
Now, if 2 new carriers are to be completed by 2015 (i.e. in 6 years time) and Varyag is to be the flight crew training vessel, then she will have to be entering service pretty soon (e.g. within the coming 1-3 years) in order do her own shake-down (at least 1 yr) plus have enough time to assure enough trained pilots for 2 more new carriers on time (at least 2 yrs).
Sign In
